Category Archives: Fed

Re: Sov CDS: ny open 15Jul08

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

(an email exchange)

>    On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Mike wrote:
>
>    Should we be looking at selling protection on USTs for 20bps?
>

makes sense

And makes even more sense for the Fed to be selling it:

  1. free money (really sort of a tax for those who want to pay it, but whatever)
  2. assists market functioning

 
 
>
>
>    Sov CDS: ny open 15Jul08
>
>    Credit 5yr 10yrket Credit 5yr 10yr
>    Austria 12.5/15.5 17.0/18.5 Ireland 27.5/30.5 37.0/39.0
>    Belgium 19.0/22.0 26.5/29.0 Italy 41.0/43.0 51.5/53.5
>    Denmark 10.0/12.5 15.0/17.5 Nether 10.5/12.5 15.0/17.0
>    Finland 10.0/12.5 15.0/17.5 Portug 38.0/40.0 48.0/50.0
>    France 11.0/13.0 15.0/17.5 Spain 38.0/40.0 47.5/49.5
>    Germany 6.0/8.0 9.75/10.75 Sweden 10.5/12.5 15.0/17.0
>    Greece 51.0/53.0 61.5/63.5 UK 14.5/17.5 21.0/24.0
>    Iceland 250/290 240/300 US 14.5/18.5 19.0/25.0
>
>


[top]

Share

The $30 billion of Bear Stearns secs were sold to the Fed

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

Doesn’t look like a funding operation.

Looks like JPM sold the Bear Stearns securities to the Fed and retained a first loss piece:

Text in JP Morgan’s 10Q:

“Concurrent with the closing of the merger, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the “FRBNY”) will take control, through a limited liability company (“LLC”) formed for this purpose, of a portfolio of $30 billion in assets of Bear Stearns, based on the value of the portfolio as of March 14, 2008. The assets of the LLC will be funded by a $29 billion, 10-year term loan from the FRBNY, and a $1 billion, 10-year note from JPMorgan Chase. The JPMorgan Chase note will be subordinated to the FRBNY loan and will bear the first $1 billion of any losses of the portfolio. Any remaining assets in the portfolio after repayment of the FRBNY loan, the JPMorgan Chase note and the expense of the LLC, will be for the account of the FRBNY.”


[top]

Share

Bernanke’s July 07 speech and today’s inflation issue

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

From Chairman Bernanke’s July 07 speech:

As you know, the control of inflation is central to good monetary policy. Price stability, which is one leg of the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate from the Congress, is a good thing in itself, for reasons that economists understand much better today than they did a few decades ago. Inflation injects noise into the price system, makes long-term financial planning more complex, and interacts in perverse ways with imperfectly indexed tax and accounting rules. In the short-to-medium term, the maintenance of price stability helps avoid the pattern of stop-go monetary policies that were the source of much instability in output and employment in the past. More fundamentally, experience suggests that high and persistent inflation undermines public confidence in the economy and in the management of economic policy generally, with potentially adverse effects on risk-taking, investment, and other productive activities that are sensitive to the public’s assessments of the prospects for future economic stability. In the long term, low inflation promotes growth, efficiency, and stability–which, all else being equal, support maximum sustainable employment, the other leg of the mandate given to the Federal Reserve by the Congress.

Note that the current anti-‘inflation’ argument within the FOMC is that the high prices for imports take discretionary income from consumers that reduces domestic demand and reduces the ability to service domestic debt. There was no thought or mention of that reason for ‘inflation’ being a ‘bad thing’ a year ago.

I suppose one could argue that this problem is due to there not being inflation, as with wages ‘well-anchored’ there is only a relative value story. If we did have ‘real inflation’ with rising wages, we wouldn’t have the problem of insufficient consumer income to support domestic demand, but we would have the traditional negatives from inflation.

But Bernanke’s response to Congress was that exports are replacing domestic consumption and that is a ‘good thing’ as it brings the US trade back to ‘balance’ and restores ‘national savings’ – the old mercantilist, gold standard imperatives. But it does leave weak domestic demand and rising prices. That brings us back to the tail end of Bernanke’s statement:

Admittedly, measuring the long-term relationship between growth or productivity and inflation is difficult. For example, it may be that low inflation has accompanied good economic performance in part because countries that maintain low inflation tend to pursue other sound economic policies as well. Still, I think we can agree that, at a minimum, the opposite proposition–that inflationary policies promote employment growth in the long run–has been entirely discredited and, indeed, that policies based on this proposition have led to very bad outcomes whenever they have been applied.

Seems that either way you look at it, rising prices (whether you call it inflation or not) lead to ‘bad’ outcomes.

And it sure looks to the dissenters in the FOMC that this is exactly what is happening. Only time will tell, but all Fed speakers now agree the risk of inflation is elevated substantially, and we will soon see if they still agree the cost of letting the inflation cat out of the bag is far higher than letting a near-term recession run its course and (hopefully) contain prices and keep a relative value story from turning into an inflation story.

Also, not how the Fed continues to use ‘other tools’ for market functioning as Bernanke just now indicates they will keep lending directly to their primary dealers.


[top]

Share

Re: Mainstream sounding off on inflation

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

(an email exchange)

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Tom wrote:
>
>
>

 

Where’s Bernanke’s Inner Volcker?

by Larry Kudlow

(NRO) On the day after an unusually important Fed policy meeting both gold and stocks severely rebuked the central bank’s decision to take no action in support of the weak dollar or to curb rapidly growing inflation. Gold spiked $30, a clear message that Bernanke & Co. won’t stop inflation. Stocks plunged over 200 points, an equally clear message that the Fed’s cheap-dollar inflation is damaging economic growth.

These market warnings are two sides of the same coin. Inflation, which is caused by excess dollar creation, is the cruelest tax of all. It is a tax on consumer and family purchasing power. It is a tax on corporate profits. It is a tax on the value of stocks, homes, and other assets. Crucially, the capital-gains tax — the most important levy on all wealth-creating assets — is un-indexed for inflation. Hence, long before Barack Obama or Congress can legislatively raise the capital-gains tax rate, rising inflation is increasing the effective tax rate on real capital gains. That’s an economy-wide problem.

By doing nothing at the June 25 meeting the Fed turned its back on the very inflation-tax problem it helped create. The spanking it received from the markets was well deserved.

Former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, who is advising Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign, issued a stern warning at the New York Economics Club a few months back. He said inflation is real and the dollar is in crisis. Soon after, Fed head Ben Bernanke changed his tune in public speeches, pledging greater vigilance on inflation and hinting at a defense of the dollar. Treasury man Henry Paulson and President Bush also stepped up their rhetoric regarding a stronger greenback.

But words were no substitute for actions this week.

It is an interesting historical footnote that Paul Volcker is still highly regarded as the greatest inflation fighter of our time. Working with Ronald Reagan, it was Volcker who slew the inflation dragon in the 1980s. Indeed, the combination of tighter monetary control from the Fed and abundant new tax incentives from Reagan launched an unprecedented twenty-five-year prosperity boom characterized by strong growth and rock-bottom inflation. At the center of the boom was a remarkable 12-fold rise in stock market values, a symbol of the renaissance of American capitalism. But that was then and this is now.

Talk of major new tax hikes is in the air today, while the inflationary decline of the American dollar is plain fact. It’s as though our economic memory is being erased, both in tax and monetary terms. Staunchly optimistic supply-siders Arthur Laffer and Steve Moore are even finishing a book on the subject. Called The Gathering Economic Storm, its concluding chapter is titled: “The Death of Economic Sanity.”

The Volcker anti-inflation model presumably handed down to Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke always argued that price stability is the cornerstone of economic growth. Yet it appears that today’s Fed has reverted to a 1970s-style Phillips-curve mentality that argues for a trade-off between unemployment and inflation, rather than the primacy of price stability.

History teaches us otherwise. It states that since rising inflation corrodes economic growth, inflation and unemployment move together — not inversely. Even in the last 18 months this is proving true. Inflation bottomed around 1 percent in late 2006. Unemployment bottomed at 4.4 percent about 6 months later. Today, the CPI inflation rate has climbed to over 4 percent, wholesale prices have jumped to 7 percent, and import prices have spiked to 18 percent. Unemployment, meanwhile, has moved up to 5.5 percent.

Over the past five years the greenback has lost 40 percent of its value. Oil is close to $140 a barrel. And gold, now trading above $900 an ounce, is warning that if the Fed fails to stop creating excess dollars, inflation could rise to 6 or 7 percent.

I had hoped Ben Bernanke would reveal his inner Volcker at Wednesday’s meeting. He didn’t. While the Fed acknowledged that “the upside risks to inflation and inflation expectations have increased,” it took no action taken to raise the fed funds target rate, which now stands at 2 percent and is actually minus-2 percent adjusted for inflation. Even a quarter-point rate hike — merely taking back the last easing move in April — would have been a shot heard ’round the world in defense of the beleaguered dollar. It didn’t happen.

Only Richard Fisher, president of the regional Dallas Fed, dissented in favor of a higher target rate. That leaves the hard-money Fisher as the lone remaining protégé of Paul Volcker.

Of course, if Fed policymakers reconvene immediately to right their wrongheaded mistake, the value of our money could be quickly restored. The next scheduled Open Market meeting is August 5, but they needn’t wait that long.

Let’s hope they come to their senses.

>
>
>

Good, thanks, as expected, this is where the mainstream (no pun intended) is going, though Kudlow is of course not ‘center’ mainstream.

Good luck to us!


[top]

Share

Re: Kohn to ROW- You hike, not us (today’s speech)

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

(an interoffice email)

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Karim wrote:
>   
>   
>   

Global Economic Integration and Decoupling


Vice Chairman Donald L. Kohn
At the International Research Forum on Monetary Policy, Frankfurt, Germany
June 26, 2008

For the moment, higher headline rates of inflation have shown only a few tentative signs of embedding themselves in core inflation or in longer-term inflation expectations.

>   -talking about u.s. here
>   
>   
>   

However, policymakers around the world must monitor the situation carefully for signs that the increases in relative prices globally do not generate persistently higher inflation. Additionally, in those countries where strong commodity demands are associated with rapid growth in aggregate demand that outstrips potential supply, actions to contain inflation by restraining aggregate demand would contribute to global price stability.

>   -not describing/talking about u.s. here;
>   focusing on EM primarily.
>   
>   

right, gets back to bernankes testimony a while back that the falling dollar has been a good thing as it works to lower the trade gap via increasing US exports that sustain US demand. the old ‘beggar they neighbor’ policy from the 30’s.

unfortunately for us it’s actually a ‘beggar thyself’ policy on closer examination as most mainstream economists will attest. they all say you don’t ‘inflate your way to prosperity’ by weakening your currency. otherwise latin america and africa for example would be the most prosperous places in the world

seems they are still in the mercantalist mode where exports are good and imports bad, and this policy is making us look like a bananna republic at an increasing rate.

recall from previous emails the dollar decline has been triggered by paulson succeeding in keeping cb’s from buying $US, Bush keeping oil producing monetary authorities from accumulating $US, and Bernanke discouraging foreign portfolio managers from accumulating same.

(more later on how it’s actually not happening due to fed rate policy, but they think it is)

as suspected, the $US is most likely to take another major leg down as it adjusts to a level where the trade gap is in line with foreign desire to accumulate $US financial assets which is probably a lot lower than the current 55-60 billion per month.

the ‘cost push inflation’ is pouring in through the trade channel, and the fed is increasingly taking the heat from the mainstream (not me- i’m the only one who thinks inflation isn’t a function of rates the way they do) for its apparent weak $US/inflate your way out of debt approach.

furthermore, the mainstream (and the stock market) sees the low interest rate/weak dollar policy as taking away US domestic demand as higher price for food/fuel leave less domestic income for everything else, including debt service.

that is, they see the falling dollar hurting us domestic demand more than the low interest rates are helping it.

the reality is there’s foreign monopolist- the saudis (and maybe russians)- that’s milking us for all they can with price hikes, and keeping us alive buying our goods and service and thereby keeping US gdp muddling through.

the real standard of living for most working americans has dropped by perhaps 10% as they work, get paid enough to eat and drive to work, and the rest of their real output is exported.

and our policy makers, including bernanke and paulson who’ve ‘engineered it’ think this is all a good thing- they think imports are bad and exports good and we are paying the price in declining real terms of trade.

while in my book interest rates are not a factor, the mainstream thinks they are, and the response when the inflation gets bad enough will be higher interest rates. The ‘correct’ anti-inflation rate last August was 5.25 when the fed didn’t cut.

by Jan 08 it was probably at least 7% with headline moving through 3% to get a sufficient ‘real rate.’

today it’s probably moved up to 8%+ as cpi is forecast to go through 5% over the next few months and gdp muddles through around 1%.

the mainstream (not me) will say that by having a real rate that’s too low now the fed will need a rate that much higher down the road as inflation accelerates due to over accommodative fed policy.

by the time the cost push inflation works its way to core- probably over the two quarters- the fed will ‘suddenly’ feel itself way behind the inflation curve and recognize they made a horrible mistake and now the cost of bringing down inflation is far higher than it would have been early on- just like they’ve always said.

the mainstream knows this, and now sees a fed with its head in the sand regarding inflation. they also see this weak dollar policy as subversive as it undermines the currency and inflation accelerates.

i expect there will be a groundswell of mainstream economists calling for the replacement of bernanke, kohn and the entire fomc very soon.

ironically, in my book low rates have helped moderate inflation via cost channels and have helped moderate domestic demand via interest income channels.

rate hike will add to domestic demand as net interest income of the private sectors from higher government interest payments add to personal income and demand.

and rate hikes will add to the cost push inflation via higher interest costs for firms.

it’ all going down hill fast, with policy makers both going the wrong way on key issues as they have the fundamentals backwards.

the only near term ‘solutions’ are near term crude oil supply responses like 30 mph speed limits which isn’t even under consideration in any form, nor are any other crude supply responses. most other alternative energy sources don’t replace crude.

medium term supply responses include pluggable hybrids that only start being produced in late 2010.

longer term supply responses include nuclear which might come on line 15 years down the road.

a collapse in world demand is possible if china/india let up on their deficit spending and growth, but so far that doesn’t seem in the cards. all their ‘tightebning’ seems to be on the ‘monetary’ side which does nothing of consequence apart from further increase inflation.

so with no supply responses on the horizon expect the saudis to keep hiking prices, and keep spending the new revenues to keep world gdp muddling through, cb’s hiking interest rates that will bring results that will cause them to hike further, and continuously declining real terms of trade for oil importers.

what to do?

cds on germany- it’s one go all go over there, and germany is the least expensive insurance.

forward muni bmas over 80 with no interest rate hedge as markets should discount the obama lead and long move up with inflation.


[top]

Share

2008-06-23 Valance Weekly Economic Graph Packet

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

Real GDP

Can you find the recession? Year over year will be reasonable until last year’s large Q3 number drops out without similar sized q3 this year.

   

Capacity Utilization, ISM Manufacturing

Down but not out as GDP muddles through.

   

Philly Fed Index, Chicago PMI, ISM Non-Manufacturing, Empire Manufacturing Index

Limping along, but off the lows
The survey numbers seem to be depressed by inflation.

   

Retail Sales, Retail Sales Ex Autos, Total Vehicle Sales, Redbook Retail Sales Growth

   

Personal Spending, Personal Income

Apart from cars and trucks, retail muddling through, and getting some support from the fiscal package.

Non-farm Payrolls, Average Hourly Earnings, Average Weekly Hours, Unemployment Rate

Certainly on the soft side, but still positive year over year, earnings still increasing, and unemployment still relatively low (the last print was distorted a couple of tenths or so by technicals).

Total Hours Worked, Labor Participation Rate, Duration of Unemployment, Household Job Growth

Help Wanted Index, Chicago Unemployment, ISM Manufacturing Employment, ISM Non-Manufacturing Employment

Philly Fed Employment, Challenger Layoffs

Most of the labor indicators are on the weak side, but not in a state of collapse. And GDP is picking up some from the fiscal package which should stabilize employment.

NAHB Housing Index, NAHB Future Sales Index

Housing Starts, Building Permits, Housing Affordability, Pending Home Sales

Leveling off to improving a touch.
Housing is still way down and could bounce 35% at any time.
And still be at relatively low levels.

MBA Mortgage Applications

Mortgage apps are down but they are still at levels previously associated with 1.5 million starts vs today’s approx 1 million starts (annual rate).

Fiscal Balance, Govt Public Debt, Govt Spending, Govt Revenue

It’s an election year, and here comes the Govt. spending which is already elevating GDP.

CPI, Core CPI, PCE Price Index, Core PCE

PPI, Core PPI, Import Prices, Import Prices Ex Petro

Export Prices, U of Michigan Inflation Expectations, CRB Index, Saudi Oil Production

The ‘inflation’ is only going to work its way higher as it pours through the import and export channels.
And with Saudi production completely demand driven, there’s no sign of a fall off of world demand for crude at current prices.
Yes, the world’s growing numbers of newly rich are outbidding America’s lower income consumers for gasoline, as US demand falls off and rest of world demand increases.

Empire Prices Paid, Empire Prices Received, Philly Fed Prices Paid, Philly Prices Received

All the price surveys are pretty much the same as ‘inflation’ pours in.

ABC Consumer Confidence, ABC Econ Component, ABC Finance Component, ABC Buying Component

And all the surveys look pretty much the same as ‘inflation’ eats into confidence

10Y Tsy Yield

And with all the weakness rates have generally moved higher as it seems inflation is doing more harm than ultra low interest rates are helping, perhaps causing the Fed to reverse course.

10Y Tips

The TIPS market has been discounting higher ‘real’ rates from the Fed.

Dow Index

Even as stocks look to test the lows

[top]

Share

Another look at Kohn’s June 11th speech

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

This still reads hawkish to me:

The results of such exercises imply that, over recent history, a sharp jump in oil prices appears to have had only modest effects on the future rate of inflation. This result likely reflects two factors. First, commodities like oil represent only a small share of the overall costs of production, implying that the magnitude of the direct pass-through from changes in such prices to other prices should be modest, all else equal. Second, inflation expectations have been well anchored in recent years, contributing to a muted response of inflation to oil price shocks. But the anchoring of expectations cannot be taken as given; indeed, the type of empirical exercises I have outlined reveal a larger effect of the price of oil on inflation prior to the last two decades, a period in which inflation expectations were not as well anchored as they are today.

Nonetheless, repeated increases in energy prices and their effect on overall inflation have contributed to a rise in the year-ahead inflation expectations of households, especially this year. Of greater concern is that some measures of longer-term inflation expectations appear to have edged up since last year. Any tendency for these longer-term inflation expectations to drift higher or even to fail to reverse over time would have troublesome implications for the outlook for inflation.

The central role of inflation expectations implies that policymakers must look beyond this type of reduced-form exercise for guidance. After all, the lags of inflation in reduced-form regressions are a very imperfect proxy for inflation expectations. As emphasized in Robert Lucas’s critique of reduced-form Phillips curves more than 30 years ago, structural models are needed to have confidence in the effect of any shock on the outlook for inflation and economic activity.

This was considered the dovish part:

In particular, an appropriate monetary policy following a jump in the price of oil will allow, on a temporary basis, both some increase in unemployment and some increase in price inflation. By pursuing actions that balance the deleterious effects of oil prices on both employment and inflation over the near term, policymakers are, in essence, attempting to find their preferred point on the activity/inflation variance-tradeoff curve introduced by John Taylor 30 years ago.

So the question is whether that point was realized by a 2% Fed funds rate currently?

Such policy actions promote the efficient adjustment of relative prices: Since real wages need to fall and both prices and wages adjust slowly, the efficient adjustment of relative prices will tend to include a bit of additional price inflation and a bit of additional unemployment for a time, leading to increases in real wages that are temporarily below the trend established by productivity gains.

But it was then qualified by this return to hawkishness regarding the inflation expectations that he previously said showed signs of elevating:

I should emphasize that the course of policy I have just described has taken inflation expectations as given. In practice, it is very important to ensure that policy actions anchor inflation expectations. This anchoring is critical: As demonstrated by historical experiences around the world and in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s, efforts to bring inflation and inflation expectations back to desirable levels after they have risen appreciably involve costly and undesirable changes in resource utilization.11 As a result, the degree to which any deviations of inflation from long-run objectives are tolerated to allow the efficient relative price adjustments that I have described needs to be tempered so as to ensure that longer-term inflation expectations are not affected to a significant extent.

And the FOMC all agree that long term inflation expectations have been affected to some extent already.

Summary
To reiterate, the Phillips curve framework is one important input to my outlook for inflation and provides a framework in which I can analyze the nature of efficient policy choices. In the case of a shock to the relative price of oil or other commodities, this framework suggests that policymakers should ensure that their actions balance the deleterious economic effects of such a shock in the short run on both unemployment and inflation.

Of course, the framework helps to define the short-run goals for policy, but it doesn’t tell you what path for interest rates will accomplish these objectives. That’s what we wrestle with at the FOMC and is perhaps a subject for a future Federal Reserve Bank of Boston conference.

This all could mean a Fed funds rate that causes unemployment to grow and dampen inflation expectations down, but not grow so much as to bring inflation down quickly is in order.

The question then is whether the appropriate Fed funds rate for this ‘balance’ between growth, employment, and inflation expectations is 2% or something higher than that.

[top]

Share

Bloomberg: Mainstream criticism of FOMC

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

As mainstream economists, the Fed knows it took a very large risk when it cut aggressively, hoping its forecasts for ‘moderating inflation’ would play out, and knowing the following would happen if ‘inflation’ accelerated.

Bernanke May Regret Interest-Rate Cuts, Lawson Says

by Kim-Mai Cutler

(Bloomberg) Former U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke may be “regretting” the fastest pace of U.S. interest-rate cuts since 1984 as global inflation accelerates.

The Fed reduced its benchmark rate by 3.25 percentage points to 2 percent between September and April 30 to stave off a recession following the collapse of the U.S. subprime-mortgage market. The Bank of England, also facing a slowdown, cut its key rate by 0.75 percentage point to 5 percent. The European Central Bank left rates unchanged at 4 percent for a year and signaled this month it may raise them in July.

“The Bank of England has been very cautious and careful and it has been much closer to the views of the European Central Bank,” Lawson, 76, who was finance minister from 1983 to 1989 under former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, said in a telephone interview. “It has not gone conspicuously the way of the Fed, where I suspect that Mr. Bernanke’s now regretting it.”

U.S. consumer prices rose 0.6 percent in May, the most since November, the Labor Department said June 13. Inflation in the euro area accelerated last month to a 3.7 percent annual rate, the fastest since June 1992, the European Union reported June 16.

Inflation caused by rising commodity prices is the biggest threat to the world economy, eclipsing concern about the seizure in the credit markets, finance ministers from the Group of Eight nations said June 14. The World Bank said on June 10 that global economic growth will probably slow to 2.7 percent this year from 3.7 percent in 2007.

Oil ‘Bubble’
Rising food prices and a “speculative bubble” in oil markets will prompt central banks to lift rates, leading to a “growth recession” where the rate of expansion is lower than historical trends, Lawson said in the interview.

Crude oil rose 95 percent from a year ago and traded at an all-time high of $139.89 a barrel in New York June 16. Corn for December delivery also traded at a record $7.915 in Chicago.

“Most of the central banks are very, very clear on just how dangerous it is to let inflationary expectations get out of hand,” he said.

Traders see a 48 percent chance the Fed will raise its target rate for overnight bank loans from 2 percent as early as August, up from 4.1 percent odds a month ago, futures contracts on the Chicago Board of Trade show. The chances of an increase in October are 99 percent, the contracts show.

Michelle Smith, a Fed spokeswoman in Washington, declined to comment on Lawson’s remarks.

‘Shallow’ Recession
The slowdown in the U.K. is going to last “longer than most people expect,” while remaining “shallow,” Lawson said. The economy, the second-largest in Europe, grew 0.4 percent in the first quarter, its weakest pace since 2005, as higher credit costs hurt construction and business services slowed, according to the Office for National Statistics.

“This is the hangover after the binge,” Lawson said. “It’s going to be very, very difficult for the next two to three years for the global economy.”

The U.K. won’t adopt the euro in place of the pound as a global slowdown heightens tensions between members of the 27- nation European Union, Lawson said. Ireland vetoed the bloc’s new government treaty June 13, sinking an agreement that needed ratification by all EU countries.

“There are going to be considerable strains within the euro area,” Lawson said. “There are going to be a number of countries that found the single currency satisfactory during the benign period, that are now going to hurt much more under these difficult conditions.”


[top]

Share

Re: Roach-Stagflation

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

(an email exchange)

A few of things:

First, the rising wages in the 70’s led to bracket creep that put the budget in surplus in 1979 and resulted in a severe recession soon after.

This time around it is unlikely the inflation takes much of a dent out of the deficit so it’s more likely demand will be sustained to support prices. And, at least so far, Congress has acted to sustain demand and support prices with the latest fiscal package and more seemingly on the way.

Second, last time around the oil producers for the most part didn’t spend all that much of their new found revenues and thereby drained demand from the US economy. This time around they seem to be spending on infrastructure at a rate sufficient to drive our exports and keep gdp muddling through.

Third, I recall it was maybe the deregulation of nat gas that freed up a cheap substitute for electric utilities and unleashed a massive supply response as nat gas was substituted for crude at the elect power producers. After 1980 opec cut production by something like 15 million bpd to hold prices above 30 until they could cut no more without capping all their wells and the price tumbled to about 10 where it stood for a long time. This time around that kind of excess supply is nowhere in sight.

>
>   On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Russell wrote:
>
>   Stephan Roach is chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, and pens
>   this missive for the FT, in which he contextualizes why the
>   Fed’s options are limited:
>
>   ”Fears of 1970s-style stagflation are back in the air. Global
>   bond markets are growing ever more nervous over this possibility,
>   and US and European central bankers are talking increasingly
>   tough about the perils of mounting inflation.
>
>   Yet today’s stagflation risks are very different from those that
>   wreaked such havoc 35 years ago. Unlike in that earlier period,
>   wages in the developed economies have been delinked from prices.
>   That all but eliminates the automatic indexation features of the
>   once dreaded wage-price spiral – perhaps the most insidious
>   feature of the “great inflation” of the 1970s. Moreover, as the
>   stunning surge of the US unemployment rate in May suggests,
>   slowing economic growth in the industrial economies is likely to
>   open up further slack in labour markets, thereby putting downward
>   cyclical pressure on wages over the next couple of years.
>
>   But there is a new threat to global inflation that was not present
>   in the 1970s. It is arising from the developing world, especially in
>   Asia, where price pressures are lurching out of control. For
>   developing Asia as a whole, consumer price index inflation hit 7.5
>   per cent in April 2008, close to a 9½-year high and more than double
>   the 3.6 per cent pace of a year ago. Sure, a good portion of the recent
>   acceleration in pricing is a result of food and energy – critically
>   important components of household budgets in poorer countries and
>   yet items that many analysts mistakenly remove to get a cleaner read
>   on underlying inflation. But even the residual, or “core”, inflation rate
>   in developing Asia surged to 3.8 per cent in April, more than double
>   the 1.8 per cent pace of a year ago…”
>
>

[top]

Share

BOJ and inflation

Posted on by


[Skip to the end]

Bank of Japan keeps distance from Fed, ECB hawks

by Leika Kihara

(Reuters) Bank of Japan Governor Masaaki Shirakawa distanced himself on Friday from the hawkish tone of U.S. and European central bankers, and signalled slowing economic growth was still a key factor in deciding interest rates.

After keeping rates steady at 0.5 percent as expected, Shirakawa acknowledged that the rising global risk of inflation had prompted the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank to deliver unusually candid warnings to markets this month.

But he said it was equally important to monitor the risk of slowing economic growth in Japan, with financial markets still bruised by a credit crisis weighing on the global economy.

My take is that over the years voters repeatedly show a larger dislike of inflation vs unemployment. They would rather have a slow down and rising unemployment than high inflation. That’s why the politicians charge the CB with controlling inflation. Inflation will get them kicked out of office even faster than unemployment will.

If the BOJ members ‘allow’ inflation and doesn’t hike rates to fight it (that’s what they all think fights inflation), I would expect the politicians will replace them members who will hike.


[top]

Share